Booklet Sept 11.pdf - Journal of Threatened Taxa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Osteobrama bhimensis synonymy Indeed, if the character state ‘barbels present’ were applied to specimens of O. bhimensis using Singh & Yazdani’s (1992) own key, the species keys out as O. vigorsii. Singh & Yazdani (1992) suggested that O. bhimensis is related to O. cotio and compared it with two subspecies of O. cotio, namely O. cotio cotio and O. cotio cunma. Even though these authors did not explicitly mention why they consider O. bhimensis to be affined to O. cotio, it appears they considered the absence of barbels in O. bhimensis to be synapomorphic in the O. bhimensis-O. cotio group. Our data, however, does not suggest a closer relationship between O. bhimensis and O. cotio than that between the former species and O. vigorsii, for two reasons. First, the holotype and all the paratypes of O. bhimensis do possess rudimentary barbels (Image 1). Second, the morphometric and meristic data of O. bhimensis do not coincide substantially with O. cotio, an observation that was also made by Singh & Yazdani S.S. Jadhav et al. (1992). Interestingly, Singh & Yazdani (1992) did not compare O. bhimensis with O. cotio peninsularis described by Silas (1952) from Poona [= Pune], which is close to the type locality of O. bhimensis. Our comparison suggests that O. bhimensis differs from O. cotio peninsularis in a number of characters including ii22–ii24 (vs. ii27–ii32 in O. c. peninsularis) anal fin rays, 26-30 (vs. 17–18) predorsal scales, 72–79 (vs. 55–56) lateral-line scales and head length 26.0–28.3 % SL (vs. 22.3–24.0 % SL). The type material of O. bhimensis and the figure given in Singh & Yazdani (1992, fig. 1), however, is consistent with Sykes’ (1842) description and figure of O. vigorsii, a species very widely distributed across the Krishna and Godavari river systems of the northcentral part of the peninsular India. A comparison of the morphometric data of the type series of O. bhimensis with the material of O. vigorsii referred to herein, from a number of locations across the Krishna River and Godavari basins (Fig. 1), suggests that 19 0 N 18 0 N 17 0 N 16 0 N 73 0 E 74 0 E 75 0 E 76 0 E 77 0 E sampling sites for Osteobrama vigorsii 0 50km type locality of Osteobrama vigorsii type locality of Osteobrama bhimensis Figure 1. Study area showing sampling sites and type localities of Osteobrama vigorsii and O. bhimensis. 2080 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | September 2011 | 3(9): 2078–2084
Osteobrama bhimensis synonymy S.S. Jadhav et al. Table 1. Comparison of ranges of morphometric and meristic data of the type series of Osteobrama bhimensis (ZSI Pune P/1235 and ZSI Pune P/1236, total 6 specimens) and the 13 specimens of O. vigorsii listed in Material Examined. Character Morphometrics Osteobrama bhimensis (N=6) Osteobrama vigorsii (N=13) Total length (mm) 168–270 123–190 Standard length (mm) 135–212 96.4–147 As a percentage of SL Body depth 30.0–33.1 30.6–35.6 Head length 26.0–28.3 24.4–28.7 Predorsal length 52.0–54.6 50.2–54.8 Dorsal to caudal length 50.9–53.5 50.1–57.5 Distance between pectoral and ventral 15.7–17.9 15.8–18.4 Distance between ventral to anal fin 19.1–22.1 17.4–38.9 Pectoral to anal distance 34.3–39.5 33.9–40.8 Preanal length 60.4–63.1 56.7–63.2 Caudal peduncle length 16.4–19.2 15.0–19.7 Caudal peduncle depth 10.4–11.2 10.3–11.7 As a percentage of HL Snout length 23.0–26.8 25.3–30.6 Eye diameter 26.9–30.2 23.9–30.7 Interorbital width 21.7–23.6 19.7–26.4 Meristics Predorsal scales 26–30 26–28 Lateral line scales 72–79 75–78 Scale rows between lateral line and base of pelvic fin 11–11½ 11–11½ Scale rows between lateral line and origin of dorsal fin 13–15 13–14 Dorsal fin rays I,8 I,8 Pectoral fin rays i,13–i,14 i,13–i,14 Ventral fin rays i,8–i,9 i,8–i,9 Anal fin rays ii,22–ii,24 ii,22–ii,23 the morphometric and meristic data of O. bhimensis substantially overlap with those of O. vigorsii (Table 1, Appendix A, B). Further, comparison of images of the types of O. bhimensis with those of O. vigorsii from a variety of sources, and the illustration of Sykes (1841) iteself, shows a remarkable resemblance (Image 2). Although Singh & Yazdani (1992) were aware of the resemblance between O. bhimensis and O. vigorsii, they separated the former from the latter based on the absence of barbels (vs. presence), 13–17 transverse scale rows between lateral line and pelvic fin base (vs. 11–11½ ), the possession of 24–32 predorsal scales (vs. 33–37), and the structure of urohyal. As already mentioned, the entire type series of O. bhimensis possesses rudimentary maxillary barbels, a character state shared with O. vigorsii. Although Singh & Yazdani (1992, Table 2) mention the number of transverse scale rows between lateral line and pelvic fin base as 13-15, we count 11 or 11½ (Table 1), which is the same range also for O. vigorsii (Hora & Misra 1940; Singh & Yazdani 1992; see also Table 1). The predorsal scales of O. bhimensis and O. vigorsii also have overlapping ranges (Table 1). An additional difference that Singh & Yazdani (1992) used to differentiate O. bhimensis from O. vigorsii was the shape of the urohyal. This is a single median triradiate bone with the anterior tip connected to the ventral hypohyals, the antero-dorsal part of which is connected to the first basibranchial and the posterior part of which is connected to the pectoral girdle by means of muscles (Johal et al. 2000). The shape of the urohyal of O. vigorsii (Image 3) matches Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | September 2011 | 3(9): 2078–2084 2081
Page 1 and 2: September 2011 | Vol. 3 | No. 9 | P
Page 3 and 4: JoTT Es s a y 3(9): 2033-2044 Strat
Page 5 and 6: Invertebrate species conservation I
Page 7 and 8: Invertebrate species conservation o
Page 9 and 10: Invertebrate species conservation T
Page 11 and 12: Invertebrate species conservation A
Page 13 and 14: Invertebrate species conservation R
Page 15 and 16: JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 3(9):
Page 17 and 18: Key to the larval stages of Odonata
Page 33 and 34: Reproductive ecology of Shorea roxb
Page 43 and 44: Reproductive biology of Puntius den
Page 49: Osteobrama bhimensis synonymy Zoolo
Page 53 and 54: Osteobrama bhimensis synonymy S.S.
Page 55 and 56: JoTT Sh o r t Co m m u n ic a t i o
Page 57 and 58: Badis singenensis, a new species of
Page 59 and 60: Badis singenensis, a new species in
Page 61 and 62: Distribution of Indian Bustard Figu
Page 63 and 64: Distribution of Indian Bustard S.B.
Page 65 and 66: JoTT No t e 3(9): 2095-2099 Distrib
Page 67 and 68: Six little known plants 3. Larsenia
Page 69 and 70: Six little known plants S.S. Dash &
Page 71 and 72: New record of Gentiana tetrasepala
Page 73 and 74: New record of Gentiana tetrasepala
Page 75 and 76: Record of Ichthyophis kodaguensis G
Page 77 and 78: Record of Ichthyophis kodaguensis o
Page 79 and 80: Dr. K.S. Negi, Nainital, India Dr.

Booklet Sept 11.pdf - Journal of Threatened Taxa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?